Authorship of the Pauline epistles

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Pauline epistles are the fourteen books in the New Testament traditionally attributed to Paul of Tarsus, thirteen of which are explicitly ascribed to Paul, and one of which, Hebrews, is anonymous. Except for Hebrews, the Pauline authorship of these letters was not academically questioned until the nineteenth century.

Seven letters are generally classified as “undisputed”, expressing near contemporary scholarly consensus: Romans, 1 & 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, 1 Thessalonians, and Philemon. Six additional letters bearing Paul's name do not currently enjoy the same academic consensus: Ephesians, Colossians, 2 Thessalonians, 1 & 2 Timothy, and Titus. The first three, called the "Deutero-Pauline Epistles," have no consensus on whether or not they are authentic letters of Paul. The latter 3, called the "Pastoral Epistles," are more disputed; contemporary scholarly opinion widely regards them as pseudonymous,^[1] though certain scholars do consider them genuine.^[2] There are two examples of pseudonymous letters written in Paul’s name apart from the alleged New Testament epistles.^[3] The anonymous Hebrews experienced debate concerning its authorship since the early centuries of the church, and contemporary scholars reject Pauline authorship.^[4]

Contents 1 Criteria used by scholars 2 The undisputed epistles 3 Colossians 4 Ephesians 5 Second Epistle to the Thessalonians 6 The Pastoral Epistles 7 Hebrews 8 History of the Pauline canon 9 See also 10 Notes 11 References 12 External links

[edit] Criteria used by scholars

Scholars use a number of methods of historiography and higher criticism to determine whether a text is property attributed to its author. The primary methods used for Paul's letters are the following:

Internal Evidence: Perhaps the most rudimentary method consists of personal testimony within the letter: claims of authorship, biographical details, and so forth. Though this manner of evidence presents obvious difficulties, it is not without importance. For example, that the Epistle to the Hebrews is anonymous became a cause for debate concerning Pauline authorship as early as the writings of Origen in the 3rd Century.

External Evidence: In contrast to internal evidence, external evidence consist of testimony to the authorship of various texts within antiquity, particularly statements made by those who would have access to reliable sources now unavailable. External evidence consists of ancient authors either quoting from Paul directly, mentioned Paul's works by name, or at the very least expressing ideas and phrases common to Paul. Use or mention by another naturally implies that the quoted material precedes its being quoted. Furthermore, it helps to date when Pauline authorship was accepted. An earlier date tends to lend credibility to genuine Pauline authorship. For example, the Second Epistle to the Thessalonians is named by Irenaeus in the mid second century, so it would be improbable that the text was composed after this date. Furthermore, the text seems to have been known to Justin Martyr and Ignatius in the very early second century. At this time, people who knew Paul personally could have still been alive. Conversely, the lack of attestation by ancient sources may suggest a later date, though this constitutes an argument from silence. Difficulties include the incomplete nature of the historical record: various ancient texts are lost, damaged, or possibly subject to later revisions. For example, both the Muratorian fragment and Papyrus 46, early lists of accepted Biblical books, are damaged, and it is thus difficult to know what texts may or may not have been on the original list.

Historical setting: An independently-written narrative of Paul's life and ministry, found in the Acts of the Apostles, is used to determine the date, and possible authorship, of Pauline letters by locating their origin within the context of his life. For example, Paul mentions that he is a prisoner in his Epistle to Philemon 1:7; J. A. T. Robinson argued that this captivity was Paul's imprisonment in Caesarea,^[5] W. M. Ramsay identified this as Paul’s captivity in Rome,^[6] while others have placed the captivity in Ephesus. One difficulty with this position is the limited data available on Paul's historical setting, and this is especially true with the conclusion of the narrative of Acts prior to Paul's death.

Language and style: Vocabulary, sentence structure, employment of idioms and common phrases, etc. are analyzed for consistency with the author’s other known works. A similar style implies common authorship, whilst a radically divergent vocabulary implies different authors. For example, E. J. Goodspeed argued that the vocabulary of the Epistle to the Ephesians showed a literary relationship with the First Epistle of Clement, written around the end of the first century.^[7] Similarly, E. Percy argued that the speech and style of Colossians more strongly resembled Pauline authorship than not.^[8] Of course, style and language can vary for other reasons besides differing authorship, such as the subject of the letter, the recipient, the circumstances of the times, or simply maturation on the part of the author.

Contents and theology: Similar to language and style, doctrinal consistency and development are analyzed in relation to the author's other known works. A certain theological matter, like the eschaton or the Mosaic Law, may be repeated in the various works in question. A consistent point of view implies a common author, whilst contradictory or simply unrelated teachings suggest multiple authors. For example, W. Michaelis observed the Christological similarities between the Pastoral Epistles and some of Paul's undisputed works, and argued in favour of Pauline authorship.^[9] An obvious problem with this method is the difficulty analyzing the coherence of a body of diverse and developing teachings. This is witnessed by the great disagreement of scholarly opinion on such matters; for example, concerning the same epistles mentioned above, B. S. Easton argued that their theological notions were inconsistent with other Pauline works and rejected Pauline authorship,^[10] while G. Lohfink argued conversely that the theology of the Pastoral epistles was consistent with Paul's, but took this as evidence that that someone wishing to enjoy the authority of an apostle copied the famous church leader.^[11]

[edit] The undisputed epistles

The name "undisputed" epistles represents the general scholarly consensus asserting that Paul authored each letter. However, even the most undisputed of letters, such as Galatians, have found critics.^[12]

Romans First Corinthians Second Corinthians

Galatians Philippians

First Thessalonians Philemon

These letters are quoted or mentioned by the earliest of sources, and are included in every ancient canon, including that of Marcion. There is no record of scholarly doubt concerning authorship until the nineteenth century when, around 1840, German scholar Ferdinand Christian Baur accepted only four of the letters bearing Paul's name were genuine, which he called the Hauptebriefe (Romans, 1 & 2 Corinthians, and Galatians). Hilgenfeld (1875) and Holtzmann (1885) instead accepted the seven letters listed above, adding Philemon, 1 Thessalonians, and Philippians; few scholars have argued against this minimal list. The epistles all share common themes, emphasis, vocabulary and style; they exhibit a uniformity doctrine concerning the Mosaic Law, Jesus, faith, &c. All of these letters easily fit into the chronology of Paul's journeys depicted in Acts of the Apostles.

Although Philemon has connections to Colossians, even those scholars who believe Colossians to be inauthentic accept that Philemon was written by Paul, because a forger would have had no motive to create this short, personal note with little theological import.

[edit] Colossians

Though Colossians is witnessed by the same historical sources as the undisputed texts, Pauline authorship of Colossians has found some critics. It was originally doubted by F. C. Baur, though others working from his general thesis, such as H. J. Holtzmann, argued that an original brief Pauline text experienced many interpolations by a later editor.^[13] The basis for this early objection was that the letter aimed at refuting Gnosticism, a heresy not serious until the early second century. This thesis subsequently declined, especially following the analysis of Gnosticism by R. Wilson,^[14] where he contended that the supposed parallels were unsupported.

Another argument centres on differences in style and vocabulary. W. Bujard attempted to show significant stylistic differences between Colossians and Paul's other works, such as unusual genitive constructions (1:27, 2:11, 2:19, 3:24).^[15] Others have analyzed the style and reached opposite conclusions, pointing to common Pauline idiom and phrase such as en christo and en kurio.

The extensiveness of the theological development in the epistle compared to other epistles has led to scepticism concerning Pauline authorship. H. Conzelmann made such an argument, pointing to differing theological concepts of "hope".^[16] Others accepting this analysis have asserted that the text is merely a late text of Paul, though the thesis has hardly found wide scholarly concurrence.^[17] It has been observed that Paul's criticism of strict adherence to "the law" is typical of the genuine Pauline letters.

The situation of the letter also supports the idea of Paul as author, matching the personal friendships expressed in the Epistle to Philemon, making many greetings relating to personal acquaintances. The connection with Philemon, an undisputed letter, is significant. A certain Archippus is referred to in both (Philemon 2, Colossians 4:17), and the greetings of both letters bear similar names (Philemon 23-24, Colossians 4:10-14).

[edit] Ephesians

The author of the epistle claims to be Paul in the opening address, itself identical to those of Second Corinthians and Colossians. There were few doubts in the early church that Paul wrote Ephesians: early church fathers authoritatively quoted from it, and examples include Tertullian,^[18] Clement of Alexandria,^[19] and Irenaeus,^[20] among others. The letter also appears in the Marcion canon (140) and the Muratorian fragment (180).

The authenticity of this letter was first disputed by the Dutch Renaissance scholar Desiderius Erasmus, and in more recent times has drawn detailed criticism.

Stylistically, the letter contains 50 sentences, 9 of which contain more than 50 words. The closest comparison, Romans, consists of 3 sentences of comparable length out of 581. Both E. J. Goodspeed,^[21] and C. L. Mitton^[22] argued that the style was unlike Paul's other works. Furthermore, many words in the letter do not occur in the "undisputed" epistles. Conversely, A. van Roon argued that the style is consistent with Paul, and considered then entire linguistic analysis dubious.^[23] In antiquity, the Greek Church Fathers, many of whom noticed the divergent Greek style of Hebrews, made no similar comments concerning Ephesians.

Theologically, the word ecclesia (church) is used to refer to the universal church rather than, as Paul typically employs it, to the local churches that he had founded. Also, the eschatological tone is more subdued than in other letters: the expectation of Christ’s imminent return is unmentioned, while future generations are, as is a concern for social order. W. G. Kummel argued that the theology is beyond Paul.^[24] Such an analysis, however, must account for the possibility of doctrinal development.

There is a close literary relationship between the Colossians and Ephesians. Over forty passages in Ephesians are expansions or variations of passages in Colossians. E. F. Scott argued that Paul used one letter as a model for the other,^[25] whereas others have considered Ephesians to be derivative of Colossians, edited and reworked by another.^[26] Donald Guthrie summarized the implications of this: "Advocates of non-Pauline authorship find it difficult to conceive that one mind could have produced two works possessing so remarkable a degree of similarity in theme and phraseology and yet differing in so many other respects, whereas advocates of Pauline authorship are equally emphatic that two minds could not have produced two such works with so much subtle interdependence blended with independence."^[27]

Paul founded and built up the church in Ephesus; however, this letter does not appear to contain the usual specific greetings, seen in Paul's other letters, addressed to people he remembers. There is some evidence that the Letter to the Ephesians might have been sent to several different churches. Some of the oldest manuscripts of this letter are not addressed to "God's holy people who are at Ephesus," but merely to "God's holy people." Marcion, around 180, quoted from this letter and attributed the quote to Paul's "Letter to the Laodiceans." In the 17th century, James Ussher suggested that this might have been a "circular letter" that Paul sent to several churches, including Ephesus and Laodicea. This would explain why Paul's usual personal greetings are absent: these could not be included in a letter sent to several different churches.

[edit] Second Epistle to the Thessalonians

The epistle was included in the Marcion canon and the Muratorian fragment; it was mentioned by name by Irenaeus, and quoted by Ignatius, Justin, and Polycarp.^[28] In recent times, criticism of Pauline authorship was raised by H. J. Holtzmann and G. Hollmann (see above). Much of the dispute concerns the linguistic similarity between 1 Thessalonians and 2 Thessalonians. For example, 1 Thess 2:9 is almost identical to 2 Thess 3:8. This has been explained in the following ways: Paul wrote 2 Thessalonians soon after writing 1 Thessalonians or with the aid of a copy of 1 Thessalonians, or Paul wrote 1 Thessalonians himself but a later writer imitated him, or the linguistic similarities are seen as subtle enough to make imitation an unnecessary hypothesis.

Udo Schnelle argued that 2 Thessalonians was significantly different in style from the "undisputed" epistles, characterizing it as whole and narrow, rather than as a lively and abrupt discussion on a range of issues. Moreover, Alfred Loisy argued that it reflected knowledge of the synoptic gospels, which, according to certain synoptic theories, had not been written when Paul wrote his epistles. Bart D. Ehrman viewed the insistence of genuineness within the letter and the strong condemnation of forgery at its start as ploys commonly used by forgers. However G. Milligan observed that a church which possessed an authentic letter of Paul would be unlikely to accept a fake addressed to them.^[29]

The Eschatology of each letter to the Thessalonians, it is argued,^[30] is considerably different.

Norman Perrin claimed that, in the time of Paul, prayer usually treated God the Father as ultimate judge, rather than Jesus. From this hypothesis he contrasted 2 Thessalonians 3:5 and 1 Thessalonians 3:13, and contended that the letter was written after Paul's death.

[edit] The Pastoral Epistles

The First Epistle to Timothy, the Second Epistle to Timothy, and the Epistle to Titus are often referred to as the Pastoral Epistles, and are the most disputed of all the epistles bearing Paul's name.

The epistles were accepted as genuine by most of the Church Fathers,^[31] including the quotations of I and II Tim by Polycarp in the first half of the second century,^[32] and many others.^[33] Some scholars have argued that the letters were certainly accepted as Pauline by the time of Irenaeus.^[34] They were also included in the Muratorian fragment. According to Jerome, the gnostic Christian Basilides also rejected these epistles, and Tatian, while accepting Titus, rejected other Pauline epistles.^[35] Scholars debate whether Marcion knew but rejected the epistles or whether they were unknown to him.^[36] D. Guthrie argues that Marcion's theology would have been cause to reject the letters since it was incompatible with certain passages, such as 1 Tim 1:8 and 1 Tim 6:20.^[37] On the other hand, Ehrman argues that the orthodox sects had motivation to forge the Pastoral Epistles to combat the Gnostic use of other Pauline epistles.^[38]

Beginning in the early 19th century, many German Biblical scholars began to question the traditional attribution of these letters to Paul. The vocabulary and phraseology used in the Pastorals is often at variance with that of the other epistles. Over 1/3 of the vocabulary is not used anywhere else in the Pauline epistles, and over 1/5 is not used anywhere else in the New Testament, while 2/3 of the non-Pauline vocabulary are used by second century Christian writers.^[39] For this reason, and because of a claimed precedence of 1 Clement, some scholars have associated these works with later 2nd century Christian writings.^[40] The precedence of 1 Clement was challenged by R. Falconer,^[41] while L. T. Johnson challenged the linguistic analysis as based on the arbitrary grouping of the three epistles together: he argued that this obscures the alleged similarities between 1 Timothy and 1 Corinthians, between Titus and the other travel letters, and between 2 Timothy and Philippians.

Norman Perrin argued that Paul's travels to Crete (Titus 1:5-6), again to Ephesus (1 Tim 1:3), Nicopolis (Titus 3:12), and Troas (2 Tim 1:15, 4:13) cannot be fit into any reconstruction of Paul's life or works as determined from the other epistles or from Acts. In this he was preceded by several scholars who rejected Pauline authorship.^[42] Robinson argued against this analysis,^[43] while others have debated whether this should be grounds for rejection of Pauline authorship, as Acts concludes while Paul is still alive. Harnack, Lightfoot and other scholars have suggested hypothetical scenarios that would have these epistles written near the end of Paul's life without contradicting biographical information in the other epistles or Acts. Moreover, one tradition witnessed in antiquity^{[citation needed]} holds that Paul's imprisonment in 62 as described in Acts was followed by his release and an additional journey, with his martyrdom occurring on his return to Rome in 66 or 67. If this tradition, sometimes called a "second career", is correct then this final journey could have been the occasion for the visits mentioned in these letters, though contemporary scholars generally consider the "second career" of Paul to be a creation of later Christian communities.^[44]

Other reasons for a second century date have been argued. The Pastoral Epistles lay out church organisation concerning the character and requirements for bishops, elders, deacons, and widows. Some scholars have claimed that these offices could not have appeared during Paul's lifetime.^[45] In terms of theology, some scholars claim that the Pastorals reflect more the characteristics of 2nd century (Proto-orthodox) church thought, than those of the 1st century.^[46] In particular, whilst in the 1st century the idea of Christ's return being immediate was current, see parousia (as also described in the non-pastoral epistles), in the 2nd century it was seen as more distant, matching the choice of the pastorals to lay down instructions for a long time after the passing away of the apostles.^[47] Lastly, some have argued that the Pastorals condemn forms of Hellenic mysticism and gnosticism, which were seen as not significant in the first century;^[48] however, recent scholarship into first century Gnosticism has suggested an earlier dominance of Gnostic views.^[49]

[edit] Hebrews

The Epistle to the Hebrews does not explicitly name its own author, although church tradition held it to have been Paul. However, since the style is so different, the authorship was distinctly disputed even in ancient times; early church authorities even went so far as to acknowledge the distinct appearance of a different author.

Church Fathers, such as Tertullian, noted the extremely different manner in which the theology, and doctrine, of the epistle appear.^[50] This variance led many to name other candidates for authorship, such as the fellow traveller of Paul called Barnabas (favoured by Tertullian), a follower of John the Baptist called Apollos (favoured by Martin Luther and several modern scholars), as well as less likely candidates such as Silas. Origen suggested that the answer would remain unknown except to God. Most individuals, even strongly conservative and religious scholars, have rejected Pauline authorship of Hebrews.

[edit] History of the Pauline canon

There are no preserved lists of a Christian canon from the first century and early second century. Though St Ignatius did quote works what later became the canon before his martyrdom of c. 110. These quotes include some that appear to be from Romans, I Corinthians, Ephesians, Colossians, and I Thessalonians, suggesting that these works, at least, existed by the time Ignatius wrote his works. Saint Ignatius does not appear to have quoted from II Thessalonians where as Polycarp (c. 80 to 167) disciple of John the Evangelist (born ? died c. 110) not only quote from II Thessalonians but also the Gospel of Matthew, Gospel of Mark, Gospel of Luke, Acts of the Apostles, I Corinthians, II Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, I Thessalonians, I Timothy, II Timothy, Epistle to the Hebrews, I Peter, I John, III John, in his The Letter to the Philippians. Scholar Bruce Metzger stated "One finds in Clement's work citations of all the books of the New Testament with the exception of Philemon, James, 2 Peter, and 2 and 3 John."

The two earliest extant lists of canons containing Paul's letters are from the late second century. One of them does not contain all of the Pauline letters. These two canons are:

• A canon written by Marcion, the founder of Marcionism (similar to gnosticism), heretical sect. Marcion did not include any of the Gospels except a version of the Gospel of Luke, which according to his enemies he had edited, whereas he claimed that it was their version which was edited. He includes ten epistles by Paul, but does not include the Pastoral Epistles (1 & 2 Timothy and Titus). Neither does he include the Epistle to the Hebrews.

• A canon written by someone unknown in Italy, usually named the Muratorian Canon. This includes all thirteen of the letters containing Paul's name, although he does not include the Epistle to the Hebrews as canon, and includes other texts now viewed as non-canonical.

• Papyrus 46, one of the oldest New Testament manuscripts (c. 200), contains the last eight chapters of Romans; all of Hebrews; virtually all of 1–2 Corinthians; all of Ephesians, Galatians, Philippians, Colossians; and two chapters of 1 Thessalonians. Because it is damaged there is no scholarly consensus on whether to consider the omission of a text definitive.

[edit] See also

• Textual criticism
• Authorship of the Johannine works
• Historicity of Jesus
• History of Christianity
• New Testament apocrypha
• Gnosticism and the New Testament
• Papyrus 46

[edit] Notes

1. ^ Ehrman 2004:385
2. ^ Guthrie lists: "Wohlenberg, Lock, Meinertz, Thornell, Schlatter, Spicq, Jeremais, Simpson, Kelly, and Fee", p622
3. ^ These are the Epistle to the Laodiceans and 3 Corinthians. See Gutherie p607-8.
4. ^ Ehrman 2004:411
5. ^ Robinson p61.
6. ^ Ramsay p357.
7. ^ Goodspeed p. vii.
8. ^ E. Percy Die Probleme der Kolosser und Epheserbriefe (1964) p66.
9. ^ W. Michaelis Pastoralbriefe und Gefangenschaftsbriefe (1930) pp99-100.
10. ^ B.S. Easton, The Pastoral Empstles (1948) p25.
11. ^ G. Lonhfink, Paulinische Theologie in der Rezeption der Pastoralbrief, in Paulus in den neutestamentlichen Spatschriften ed. K. Kertelge, (1981) pp70-121.
12. ^ for example, F. R. McGuire, even though otherwise critical scholars like A. Q. Morton saw this text as the bench march for refuting Pauline authorship of most other epistles; see A. Q. Morton and J. McLeman, Paul, the man and the Myth (1966).
13. ^ see F. F. Bruce, Colossians p172; also, Holtzman, Kritik der Epheser u. Kolosserbriefe (1872); some have attempted to locate the origin of doubt with T. Mayerhoff as early as 1838 in his work Der Brief an die Kolosser.
14. ^ R. McL. Wilson, Gnosis and the New Testament (1958) p175.
15. ^ W. Bujard, Stilanalytische Unterschungen zum Kolosserfrief als Beitrag zur Methodik von Sprachvergleichen (1973) see the commentary in Guthrie p574-5
16. ^ H. Conzelmann, An Outline of the Theology of the New Testament (1969) p314.
17. ^ see, for example, G. Cannon The Use of Traditonal Materials in Colossians (1983) pp196-203.
18. ^ Tertullian, Against Marcion 5.22.17
19. ^ Clement of Alexandria, Stromata 4.65
20. ^ Irenaeus, Adversus Haereses 5.2.3
21. ^ Goodspeed p. vi
22. ^ Mitton, The Epistle to the Ephesians (1951) p. ii
23. ^ Roon, The Authenticity of Ephesians (1974) p. 215
24. ^ P. Feine and J. Kummel, Einleitung in das Neue Testament (English translation Kummel) p. 360
25. ^ Scott, The Epistles of Paul to the Colossians, to Philemon and to the Ephesians (1930) p121
26. ^ e.g. Mitton, The Epistle to the Ephesians (1951) p. 245-255
27. ^ Guthrie p511
28. ^ Guthrie p593
29. ^ G. Milligan, Saint Paul's Epistles to the Thessalonians (1908) vi, ix, p448.
30. ^ for example, see C. Masson, Les Epitres aux Thessaloniciens (1957) pp. 10-11
31. ^ A few Fathers do not mention these epistles by name, instead quoting passages found in these letters, and there is no evidence in the surviving writings of Ignatius and Justin Martyr that proves their familiarity with these texts.
32. ^ See Harnack p72 and Jeremais p4
33. ^ Davis, Glen (1997-2006). Cross Reference Table: Writings and Authorities. The Development of the Canon of the New Testament. Retrieved on 2006-09-23.
34. ^ see Bernard xv; James p5-24
35. ^ Guthrie 1990:610
36. ^ In Adv. Marc. V.21, Tertullian is confused why these epistles were not included in Marcion's canon.
37. ^ Guthrie 1990:610
38. ^ Ehrman 2003:240
39. ^ Perrin 1974:264-5
40. ^ Harrison p177, Streeter p153
41. ^ Falconer p5
42. ^ Holtzmann, Dibelius, and Goodspeed, for example.
43. ^ Robinson p67-85
44. ^ Brown 1997:675
45. ^ Ehrman 2004:391
46. ^ Ehrman 2003:240
47. ^ Ehrman 2004:391
48. ^ See Easton p1-2
49. ^ Guthrie p617-8
50. ^ De Pudicitia, XX

[edit] References

• Bernard, J. H. (1899). The Pastoral Epistles.
• Brown, Raymond E. (1997). Introduction to the New Testament. New York: Anchor Bible. ISBN 0-38-524767-2.
• Easton, B. S. (1948). The Pastoral Epistles.
• Ehrman, Bart D. (2003). Lost Christianities: The Battles for Scripture and the Faiths We Never Knew. New York: Oxford. ISBN 0-19-514183-0.
• Ehrman, Bart D. (2004). The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings. New York: Oxford. ISBN 0-19-515462-2.
• Ehrman, Bart D. (1996). The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture:The Effect of Early Christological Controversies on the Text of the New Testament. New York: Oxford. ISBN 0-19-510279-7.
• Falconer, Sir R. (1937). The Pastoral Epistles.
• Goodspeed, E. J. (1956). Key to Ephesians.
• Guthrie, Donald (1990). New Testament Introduction. Hazell Books. ISBN 0-85111-761-9.
• Heard, Richard (1950). An Introduction to the New Testament. Black. ASIN B0000CHRAW.
• Harrison, P. N. (1921). The Problem of the Pastoral Epistles.
• Johnson, Luke Timothy, Todd C. Penner (2002). The Writings of the New Testament: An Interpretation. Augsburg Fortress Publishers. ISBN 0-80-063439-X.
• von Harnack, Adolf (1926). Die Briefsammlung des Apostels Paulus.
• James, J. D. (1906). The Genuineness and Authorship of the Pastoral Epistles.
• Jeremais, J. (1952). Die Briefe an Timotheus und Titus.
• Kümmel, Werner G. (1996). Introduction to the New Testament. Abingdon Pr. ISBN 0-68-705576-8.
• Pagels, Elaine (1992). The Gnostic Paul: Gnostic Exegesis of the Pauline Letters. Trinity Press International. ISBN 1-56-338039-0.
• Perrin, Norman (1974). The New Testament, an Introduction: Proclamation and Parenesis, Myth and History. Harcourt College Pub. ISBN 0-15-565725-9.
• Ramsay, Sir W. M. (1920). St. Paul the Traveller.
• Robinson, J. A. T. (1976). Redating the New Testament.
• Schnelle, Udo (1998). The History and Theology of the New Testament Writings. Augsburg Fortress Publishers. ISBN 0-80-062952-3.
• Streeter, B. H. (1929). The Primitive Church.

[edit] External links

• Hermann Detering, 'The Dutch Approach to the Pauline Epistles". The Dutch Radicals denied the authenticity even of the so-called Principal Epistles, in order to interpreting the entire corpus as representing antinomistic movements dating from about 140.
• J. P. Holding, "A Defense of the Authenticity of all the Pastoral Epistles" Christian apologist perspective